Review of Open Water (2004) by Ryan K — 08 Oct 2012

So, what, is this supposed to be a crossover between those two Kevin Costner movies? Oh no, wait, that's "Open Waterworld". Yeah, I'm sorry, that was lame, but hey, I'm sure you can see why I got confused, seeing as how "Waterworld" mixed with "Open Range" would give you an idea of how dull this film is. No, I'm kidding people, this film isn't to be mistaken for films like "Open Range" or "Waterworld", not just because those films really aren't as dull as this one, but because, as the budget-box office ratio for "Waterworld", when it first hit theaters, will tell you, Kevin Costner's films are definately not this cheap. I see now why Chris Kentis and Laura Lau chose to stay faithful to the real time, one continuous shot aspect of "La Casa Muda" when they remade it as "Silent House", because even they figured that they seriously needed to make up for how badly shot this film was. If for no other reason, they kept the film in real time to make up for how short this film is, because, wow, yet another thing that sets this film apart from many Kevin Costner films is the fact that Costner's films are really long, with this not even 80-minute-long opus being anything but, and yet, that being said, this film still isn't short enough, and I'm not just saying that because things drag on a bit. No, this film isn't that bad, but it's close to it, going saved by strengths that are in short supply, yet present nonetheless.

Leads Daniel Travis and Blanchard Ryan aren't given quite as much to do as they should be, and what material there is for them to work with sometimes goes betrayed by the limited development, and underwhelming writing and direction, that I'll touch more upon later, yet with that all being said, Travis and Ryan are key to this film's survival. Travis and Ryan turn in performances that are not much more than pretty good, yet that's good enough to keep this film, which is so heavily reliant upon its performers, going, as Travis and Ryan are both charming by their own rights and, when their able to battle back to bland directorial atmosphere that undercuts sparks, decent chemistry, and when emotional range and layers come into play, they're not as intense on paper as they probably should be, yet are well-acted enough to establish a degree of momentary compellingness. Travis' and Ryan's charisma and moments of layered emotional range might not so much keep you emotionally invested, but keep you generally engaged, having a certain bite - shark pun not intented - that livens the film a bit, and certainy makes stronger the handful of occasions of moderate effectiveness that are to be found. Director Chris Kentis all too falls flat in most every filmmaking department in which he is involved, and that includes the directing department, yet I can't help but feel as though there is some potential within this filmmaker, for although he makes more than a few mistakes with this film, there are those occasions in which he finally wakes up and wakes you up, establishing atmosphere of intrigue that does leave you to drift - swimming pun... kind of intended - in, if not to the edge of your seat. These moments are certainly far and few between, yet they stand and do admittedly deliver, while what very few effective dramatic touches there are further keep you going, for although this film's drama doesn't really strike until the final act, or even really strike all that deeply when it does finally arrive, there are those occasions that do, in fact, earn your investment, with ending being, not terribly good, but good enough to be a touch touching. Still, more than that, all the decent final act and, certainly, relatively strong ending do is remind you of what, outside of the performances and moderate intrigue, saves the rest of the film: the simple fact that the final product is too mediocre to be bad. The film has its relative high points, and keeps consistent with a certain charm of mediocrity, yet it would not be able to obtain the latter without having mediocrity in the first place, and sure enough, this film falls short of its potential, if not just plain flat, particularly when it comes to technical value.

Dirt cheap, this film cost a mere $500,000, and quite frankly, I have no idea where all that money went, because the film is a technical mess, with improvable editing and mediocre sound design that makes clear as day this movie's simply being a movie, and not terribly well-constructed movie, if that, because here and there, this film doesn't so much feel like a movie as much as it feels like some teenager's lame YouTube video. Of course, mediocre editing and sound design aren't quite enough to make a film feel that cheap, so where this film truly faults technically is in its photography, because, let me tell you, this film is truly an awesome testament to there being such a thing as bad cinematography, as Chris Kentis and Laura Lau deliver on few cinematic shots, with what few shots there are that are decent going undercut by color's and lighting's looking so bland that, with just a couple dollars less, this film would go outdone in the photography department by "Birdemic". It's a bit difficult to fully describe the poorness of this film's photography, but make no mistake, this film does fault tremendously in a technical department that many disregard as crucial to a film's effectiveness and would perhaps appreciate more if they saw this film, because the photography really does undercut most every other professional filmmaking aspect and takes you out of the film. What further disengages you from this film is Chris Kentis' script, which really isn't all that bad, yet has its share of awkward set pieces, - made all the worse by the technically faulty execution - as well as dialogue that has moments in which it falls pretty flat and just as awkwardly, yet is primarily just plain underwhelming, much like the structure of the story, as Kentis offers very little in the immediate development department, and not too much more in the gradual characterization department, thus leaving the film's story to not deliver on too much bite, something that it can't afford to do when the film it's executed into runs, not in the 90's or 80's runtime range, but in the 70's runtime range. Still, as considerably short as the film is, I wasn't entirely joking earler when I said in the opener that this film was "not short enough", as there are still many moments of total nohingness that drag on and on, as well as many moments that later return very repetitiously, thus creating a very bland story structure to go with a very bland script, so of course it's fitting that Kentis' direction is, more often than not, also pretty bland. As I said, Kentis hits relative directorial high points, while keeping consistent in a kind of ambitious charm that keeps this film from becoming repulsive, yet on the whole, Kentis' occasions of promise are outweighed by Kentis' falling flat atmospherically, with no bite, only blandness that, when combined with the blandness already established in the script structure, creates dullness, which may not be terribly intense, yet remains intense enough and prevalent enough to keep this film from taking off. Pardon yet another pun, but this film just "drifts" along aimlessly, bobbing up and down between mediocre moments - if not decent occasions - and weak occasions that nearly destroy this film, and while this film's handful of strengths, and simply being not quite weak enough, keep it from sinking, there's nothing here to bring this film to, on the whole, swim either.

In the end, the film goes saved by leads Daniel Travis' and Blanchard Ryan's decent performances, as well as occasions of intrigue, if not dramatic compellingness, while going secured from total disaster by a certain charm in ambition, yet such ambition goes betrayed in the long run by faults that nearly crush this film, whether it be the mediocre technical value and disengagingly shoddy photography, or a script plagued by a few awkward set pieces and dialogue, as well as underwhelming characterization and even excessive padding through long periods of nothingness and repeititon that create blandness, made all the more intense by Chris Kentis' primarily dull, biteless direction, which helps in making "Open Water" a tremendously underwhelming and fairly unrewarding misfire of betrayed potential.

2/5 - Mediocre.